what's considered a digital looking image?

[charjohncarter]

I once clicked on the random, or maybe not so random photos (they all seem to be copyright 2013), that come up when you log on to RFF. It was a portrait done with a Leica M or MM (digital). It was great, the photographer used a Noctlux or whatever they call it. It had many digital qualities but I think the real clincher was the lens gave a softness (as I recall it was wide open) that is hard to achieve with my digital cameras.

 

[clayne]

I use the correct definition of dynamic range of a digital system or signal. And the unit of Dynamic Range of a digital system is bits, as is the unit of Entropy. Bits in Information Theory are similar to "dB" used as a unit for Analog Systems. You can keep calling it "Stops" if you like, but I prefer to use established units.

You need to take into account saturation and shoulder compression as well. Film's input DR/stops != recorded DR/stops. Non-linear. Although from reading it again it appears you may understand this. I agree, it is not a perfect rendition of the original input and will never be. The difference though is that it's actually recorded onto the film and is perfectly usable (and expandable via localized contrast) - whereas digital mediums just clip it right off. Nothing specific to film here - just good ole analog response to over-input (tape does the same thing).

 

[ferider]

But you were talking about the amount of dynamic range the camera is capable of, which is determined by the analog characteristics of the sensor. By the noise not the bits.

In a modern camera, noise only affects Dynamic Range for high ISO. For more typical applications, the DR is limited by the AD converter and the number of bits it generates.

I's compressed as in contrast is lowered.

Compression is also a well defined term in Information Theory. We are obviously speaking a different language, so I'll leave it at that.

You need to take into account saturation and shoulder compression as well. Film's input DR/stops != recorded DR/stops. Non-linear. Although from reading it again it appears you may understand this. I agree, it is not a perfect rendition of the original input and will never be. The difference though is that it's actually recorded onto the film and is perfectly usable (and expandable via localized contrast) - whereas digital mediums just clip it right off. Nothing specific to film here - just good ole analog response to over-input (tape does the same thing).

I largely agree. Just saying that when moving from 14bit DR (per color) of, say, a D800 to the 8bit of your monitor, the remaining 6 bit are "good enough" to map practically any response curve you want onto the original 14bit signal (possible in PS when using 16bit) - provided the original exposure was OK. When you see undesired blown highlights in a digital picture taken with a modern camera, it's usually either an exposure or a post-processing mistake.

Let me say it like this: when your final output is the screen, and you shoot with a 14bit digital camera, you have 6 Stops "exposure latitude".

BTW, I use film. And I like prints ... however, I am critical of people who look at a 600x800 grain/noise-less web picture and immediately identify it as either digital or film. There is simply no way they can know for sure. I can blow highlights with a scanner too (and, unfortunately, I have many times 🙂 ).

Thanks.

 

[Ranchu]

Compression is also a well defined term in Information Theory. We are obviously speaking a different language, so I'll leave it at that.

Well whatever. It's generally not necessary for communication that all parties use the terminology you use, only that we understand each other. You seem to be avoiding my meaning. In any case I don't buy your assertion that noise v grain is the only difference between film and digital.

 

[Keith]

But... but, if we follow your suggestion, we'd be calling a hammer "the finger smasher" too. 😀

The "crap" is the result of (ab)use or (mis)use of the slider.

Well if what you say is true they should make software that leaves bruises and blackened nails if you use it incorrectly! 😀

 

[noisycheese]

What's considered a digital looking image?

In my view, it is an image that -

Has no grain (homogenized, plastic-like look)
Has no light and shadow (overworked HDR look)
Has overdone hyper-sharp appearance
Has overdone hyper-contrast appearance
Has an unrealistic color shift

Images that have these attributes just don't look natural IMHO - which is why I have stayed with film based photography.

 

[jsrockit]

In my view, it is an image that -

Has overdone hyper-sharp appearance
Has overdone hyper-contrast appearance
Has an unrealistic color shift

Please explain further... digital doesn't have to have any of these attribuites.

 

[daveleo]

@noisycheese

All of the worst film images I've ever seen have those characteristics (except maybe the creamy-smooth character you listed).
And back in the day, we loved loved loved grain-free pictures and slow, smooth film. Now digital is grain free and we hate it ? People !

 

[thegman]

@noisycheese

All of the worst film images I've ever seen have those characteristics (except maybe the creamy-smooth character you listed).
And back in the day, we loved loved loved grain-free pictures and slow, smooth film. Now digital is grain free and we hate it ? People !

It's just fashion though is it not?

Ansel Adams and people like him shot at f/64 to put everything into sharp focus, probably using tilts too, but nowadays it's more fashionable to have nothing in focus with a f/0.95 lens. I'm sure grain will go out of fashion again, then come back in ad infinitum.

 

[furbs]

Please explain further... digital doesn't have to have any of these attribuites.

Doesn't have to, but it tends to. The thread is about "digital-looking images, and whether that look is to your taste or not, people have made so many digital images in this vein that, for many, it's all they know as far as digital imaging is concerned.

The technology doesn't force people to produce "digital-looking" images, but it's just so easy to make them, and everyone else is doing it, so for many there isn't much incentive to stray from that path.

 

[jsrockit]

Very true daveleo and thegman. We have to remember that many street photographs from the 60s were pushed B&W film out of necessity and not for aesthetic reasons. The photographers were using the tools of the time and tweaking them to fit their needs.

 

[jsrockit]

The technology doesn't force people to produce "digital-looking" images, but it's just so easy to make them, and everyone else is doing it, so for many there isn't much incentive to stray from that path.

Right, because there is nothing wrong with the look. Wanting digital to look like film has everything to do with nostalgia. In 50 years, people may be emulating the digital of today. Who knows...

Many here will speak of film and why they love it compared to digital and then present flat, gray (no true blacks or whites), soft images (camera shake, etc.). That is their choice, but that can be an equally lame look as compared to overcooked digital IMO.

 

[furbs]

Right, because there is nothing wrong with the look. Wanting digital to look like film has everything to do with nostalgia. In 50 years, people may be emulating the digital of today. Who knows...

Well, one's opinions on the "digital look" are extremely subjective 😛 But very true!

 

[Mcary]

Guess it depends on the look you're going for as I find that digital and large format film complement each other nicely.

 

[icebear]

The analogy to sound reproduction has been barely touched upon here.
Vinyl vs. mp3, film vs. digital.
In both cases, comparisons are hazardous, because of the wide range of reproduction quality that can be obtained in each medium : 35mm Tri-X is no match for 4x5' FP4, 92bps mp3's do not sound as clean as 44.1 Khz per channel.

In both cases, analog is described with 'warm' attributes, and digital gets 'cold' ones. ...

Very interesting,
in the recent issue of TAS (The Absolute Sound) there is the last page interview (can't recall right now who) and they touch on mechanical restrictions of frequency extremes to be put into the vinyl groove. There are limitations of what information can be detected by the stylus. Consequently there is more "meat in middle" on vinyl or it "sounds warmer".
After the digital revolution in the recording industry producers asked for more and more extremes (more bass, more and louder high frequency) as the new technology allowed to go more extreme.

I think it is exactly the same in digital photography. The technology (vinyl or CD ; film or digital sensor ) does NOT inherently give a certain signal character, it is what the user makes of it. [OK yes, linear vs slow roll off difference ... point taken]

Switch off noise reduction & sharpering and do proper manual white balance and you are 90% there for a decent "non digital looking" image.

 

[back alley]

..Switch off noise reduction & sharpering and do proper manual white balance...

but we as consumers cannot do this, correct?
even when set at zero, the maufacturers have set noise reduction/sharpening for us, no?

 

[furbs]

even when set at zero, the maufacturers have set noise reduction/sharpening for us, no?

That's why they invented Portrait Mode! Just let the camera decide for you, the freedom of choice would certainly get in the way otherwise 😀

 

[back alley]

That's why they invented Portrait Mode! Just let the camera decide for you, the freedom of choice would certainly get in the way otherwise 😀

very cute!

i'm talking about what is built into the camera even tho the settings might say zero, they have a certain level of sharpening/noise reduction built in...that's my understanding anyway...

 

[Mcary]

very cute!

i'm talking about what is built into the camera even tho the settings might say zero, they have a certain level of sharpening/noise reduction built in...that's my understanding anyway...

Best way to maintain as much control as possible is to shoot in RAW much like doing your own processing is the best way to maintain as much control as possible when shooting B&W film.

Does this mean you'll have 100% control of course not just as film emulsions have a certain look to them so do the files from different digital cameras. Key is to find the combination of capture file+ processing software/method that gives you the results you like best. Yes just like choosing the right* film and developer combination with film

*right*=one you like best 🙂

 

[icebear]

..Switch off noise reduction & sharpering and do proper manual white balance...

but we as consumers cannot do this, correct?
even when set at zero, the maufacturers have set noise reduction/sharpening for us, no?

Joe,

OK, if the camera doesn't allow a manual WB and only produces jpg's, not raw, then are are indeed screwed :bang: 😀.
Otherwise you can export the raw file and turn off "details" in your editing software (e.g. in Lightroom) that have some default settings for minimum sharpening and noise reduction.

Rule of thumb:
If you do something with any filter/effect, shift the slider until you see an effect on screen and then go back 50%.

Never follow what the manufacturer wants you to do... do you ever read a manual ? 😉